This is not an attempt to try and support any positions or say one religion or another is right (as in this is not intended to discredit Christians or Atheists. It is intended to give them both a middle ground that makes sense so they'll stop these stupid arguments). I'm just getting tired of these fundamentalist Christian/Mormon/whatever else and atheist/agnostic arguments on whether or not evolution really happened.

It's pretty simple really. So if you take the fact that the Bible is chock-full of parables and metaphors and whatnot, can't you just say that the 7 days creating the universe is a metaphor or a relative viewpoint of some sort? It's not that complicated, I mean he's an eternal God! What 1 day is to us could be 1 billion days to God! Evolution could be the long process it took to create humans that was metaphorically compared to 7 days.

I don't understand if so many people take so many parts of the Bible as fable/metaphor and parables then why does this part have to be taken literally? Seriously. I think Christians and Mormons should get over their stubbornness and just accept the fact that they might actually be wrong about some things.

Edit: To clear up the air, here are some comments I made in this post that help it make sense:

"I was calling out the fact that it doesn't make sense so if you just say it's a metaphor it makes sense. Pretty much pulling a Mormon on the Bible."

and:

"I'm pretty much being sarcastic about it. I'm not good at sarcasm over text. I'm finding out a lot of dumb contradictions in the Bible. A lot of Bible experts and theologists and pastors have to do mental gymnastics to make sense of it the same way Mormons do. I've even suggested the fact that maybe, since it was compiled by a bunch of scholars in the 17th century or whenever that they put in parts that really weren't true and that wasn't an option because everything is in there for a "reason" (that is a very watered down version of the account)."

P.S. It was more of a half sarcasm because I really do wish that people would stop fighting about the evolution thing. And maybe there is some way to make the metaphor idea make sense but I'm not actually trying to give strong based facts or anything. Evolution seems to be one of the more obvious ideas that is just fought simply because it contradicts and it's obnoxious



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2012 05:55PM by nickson.

Among other flaws.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2012 05:29PM by MJ.

no.

You're not asking if the bible and science can work together. You're asking us to pretend the bible doesn't say what it says. You want us to re-write the bible in our heads to match the observable evidence available to us today and then pretend that's what the bronze-age tribalists meant when the scribbled down their superstitions.

No. Thanks.

"The story of Noah's ark could be true if it were told differently."

"Genesis isn't a LITERAL account of the creation, it's just a metaphor."

"Adam didn't REALLY live to be 900+ years old."

Why not call a spade a spade?

Um...actually that's exactly what I was doing. I was calling out the fact that it doesn't make sense so if you just say it's a metaphor it makes sense. Pretty much pulling a Mormon on the Bible.

I'm pretty much being sarcastic about it. I'm not good at sarcasm over text. I'm finding out a lot of dumb contradictions in the Bible. A lot of Bible experts and theologists and pastors have to do mental gymnastics to make sense of it the same way Mormons do. I've even suggested the fact that maybe, since it was compiled by a bunch of scholars in the 17th century or whenever that they put in parts that really weren't true and that wasn't an option because everything is in there for a "reason" (that is a very watered down version of the account).

For example, how would you explain the metaphor of God using Adam's rib to create Eve in relation to evolution?

Or the part of the metaphor where there is light before any sources of light?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2012 05:43PM by MJ.

There are plenty of believing Christians who also accept evolution as factual. Kenneth R Miller is one. He is a Professor of Biology at Brown University.

He's simply deluding himself, then.

It's not the 7 days creating the earth that's the problem. It's that when you add up all the begats in the bible, you only get 6,000 years total up to now. Sorry, but there's no way to work around that by saying it's a metaphor. Begats are usually biological, not metaphorical. And fundamentalist Christians take this stuff pretty seriously as a historical record.

Here's an example of how the timeline is added up:
http://everything2.com/title/Estimating+the+age+of+the+Earth+using+the+Bible

The fact that so many Bible thumping hellfire and brimstone "Christians" accept the King James version as the actual "word of God" is bizarre if one understands the origins of the book and the reason that King James of England had it commissioned.

Ron Burr

The bible can't work with science. In fact if examined critically at all, it can't even work with morality!

-No prohibition against slavery
-Women treated as property
-Kill the witches, when no such thing exists
-Stone your disobedient children
-Cut off part of your penis
-Don't eat bacon WTF!!!
-Perfect genocide manual of instructions
-Jesus says be a homeless hippie and leave your family

The book is crap, but has to be read in order to understand later literature that references it. That's the only reason to read it at all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2012 05:58PM by rationalguy.

Gee MJ -- there probably was light before our sun -- like -- uhm -- other stars? Or do you think we are the only solar system in the universe? How terribly quaint.

It is a fact of the history of Western Civilization that every people, generation, and culture influenced by the Bible has interpreted it differently. Many take it as metaphor. Again -- just stating a fact like "There are other other suns in the universe." Many Christian religions are not hung up on taking the Bible literally, and many scientists (who do not struggle with understanding bacteria, species, or evolution as a fact) participate in religions based on the Bible.

Perhaps they all need rationalguy to live up to his name and tell them what they MUST believe, but oddly enough, they don't seem to need his approval -- or anyone else's -- to reconcile the Bible and evolution. They. Just. Do. It.

P.S. to rationalguy (That's a nice name! Why not live up to it?) Even Dawkins does not rant about the Bible. He easily concedes its beauty and importance. One count in his favor.

Peronally, I worry as much about getting my humanities -- such as history, social studies, and literature straight -- as I worry about getting my science straight. I don't much worry about what I think other people SHOULD believe. I just try to get in the ballpark when talking about what they do believe.

Science is the best explanation of the universe and how it works. It has nothing to offer when we want to set the stage for the meaning of human existence as a species or as an individual. That is where poetry, myth, music, theater come in. That is where the Bible shines -- at least in places. As a creation myth, I think it is a good one. (But it is my culture's so why wouldn't I.) I like the story of the Garden of Eden. Again, as a story to sum up what it meant to mankind to separate from nature, settle down into cities, to go from swinging in trees to the Ice Age to actual human culture and history, it is as good a tight metaphor as I have come across.

I think there is a great deal of telling religious people what they really believe and not so much actually listening to the variety of what religious people actually say they believe. What is that about?

I think the "cherry picking" argument is lame. In a vast and self-contradictory work of art, to pick any one thing is "cherry picking." But it isn't. There are many messages and slants in the Bible (and -- just by the way, Hamlet, among other), so to choose one to accent is not "cherry picking." It is a way into the work. To say that those who stress "Do unto others" are 'cherry picking,' is wildly hypocritical when done by those who say stress human sacrifice in the Bible. That is NOT cherry picking?

Art is not detrimental to science. Think about it for a moment. That attitude is detrimental to both. Science does not want to be art. It can't be art and good science. Then science would have to pick what is "pretty" (if pretty is in fashion) or "ugly" if ugly is in fashion or what is "realistic" if realistic is in fashion or "absurd" if absurd is in fashion. Then it cannot go about the business of science. Science has at times produced work that is beautiful, ugly, realistic, and absurd -- but never never never with that aim. Science just IS -- and it can be no other way.

I also think the "magical thinking" argument is lame. Einstein proselytized for imagination in science. He could not have discovered what he did without stepping outside of the way we perceive reality. Is that "magical thinking"? I have no idea. I honestly don't know what "magical thinking" is. And I suspect that whatever it is, we all do it -- with good as well as bad results.

I read his arguments differently than you.

The cherry picking argument as I read it is for the supernatural stuff - some of the supernatural aspects are real and some are false.

E.G. the creation is a myth but Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead is historical.

If you consider it literature/history then that's a different matter entirely.

Uhm -- I've never read it as anything but literature -- so I don't know what you are talking about, kolobian. The poetry is taking too many liberties for you? You want the poetry arranged differently? I'm not advocating for taking it literally so pointing out it doesn't work literally is -- can we go with weird?

It is not science. That is the point. It's poetry, myth. And if its good enough for Dylan, it is good enough for you.

I've never thought that some of the supernatural stuff was real and other aspects false. I don't think so. There are different things going on in the Bible, but I don't think that is it (in my opinion). Some of the "supernatural" stuff is metaphor. I don't think anyone was raised from the dead. Just me. I think that specific story was metaphor -- and perhaps an urban legend embellishment of a historical event. But I don't think we even know that much. We know very little about the historic Jesus. I just assume that all "supernatural" elements are poetry, metaphor, or at times more urban legend. I think they were all designed to communicate something -- but that something could be a transcendent state of mind, it could be the writer reaching for something that would startle the listener into seeing his vision vividly. One thing I don't believe is that the people who produced the Bible are wildly inferior to us or that they were deceived where we are enlightened. They were different. All ancient cultures are different to ours. But I think of the many ways they were good at being human.

janeliot said:

"Some of the "supernatural" stuff is metaphor."

That's exactly what I was trying to explain. Would you like to define your criteria for how you decide which supernatural things are metaphor and which is not? Explain how your criteria for where to draw the line are justified over where someone else draws the line?

I guarantee it is simply preference.

Over time more and more of the unbelievable supernatural claims have been relegated to metaphor (myth, symbolism, etc.) as science makes shines light on the claims.

rationalguy -- just as long as you are consistent. Isn't that the theme that has evolved on the thread? Just as long as you don't happen to like the Iliad (rape, slavery, etc. etc.) or for that matter, as long as you don't go to the movies much -- which also deal with death and mayhem -- sometimes in an "uplifting" or "sensitive" way (Schindler's List) and sometimes not so much (Batman, Gladiator, etc. etc.). And I hope to god you don't watch TV! Good heavens. Rape, slavery, murder galore.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you might well be one of those guys who loves himself some rape, murder, and savagery -- of the box office variety. If it is Skyfall perhaps? Just as long as you didn't go in for the ghastly, unwatchable Braveheart, I guess it isn't true hypocrisy.

As I said -- it is art -- and you might be surprised how little it really changes over the years...

I would argue that cherry picking scientific facts leads to incorrect conclusions. The hypothesis MUST account for ALL the facts. If something doesn't fit, it must be explained.

This is different than cherry picking in art. I agree with your comments as far as literature, etc. In science, it can provide vision, but ultimately the facts validate the claim or they do not. You don't get to cherry pick parts of evolution and pretend angels had wings (and have any credibility).

Cherry picking in the Bible usually involves randomly believing in supernatural claims. For example someone might believe in the talking burning bush but they will not believe in the talking a$$.

People might randomly pick what things from the OT still apply with nothing other than preference to back them up. This impacts what is acceptable in our society. It does not, however, dictate what is true in science.

Jane,

Bible-god made light on the first day - Genesis 1:3

But he didn't make stars until AFTER he'd made the sun & moon on the fourth day - Genesis 1:16

He made grass & trees on the third day BEFORE he made the sun - Genesis 1:11-12

And also, let's just go ahead and assume the bible is lying and god created stars on the first day (even though that's not what the bible says)

The closest star is Proxima Centauri, over 4 light years away. So it would have taken at least 4 years for that light to get here, and how much light do you think that would have been? Do you often drive at night without headlights? And that's with ALL the stars.

Just sayin'. Read your bible..

+infinity

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I don't find genocide, slavery, rape and the stoning of children beautiful. You are right in a limited sense.. there are some good parts, but punctuated by the most vile savagery I've ever heard of. I give it one star out of five.

There are a lot of people who think that the Bible and evolution can work together. As far as the age of the earth is concerned, there are a couple of references in Genesis that imply maybe something was here before the creation of Adam and Eve and the present world (Genesis 1:2 (the word "was" in Hebrews can also be translated "became"), and Genesis 1:28. Not sure how exactly it all went down, but I personally believe God created it, and there is more than one possible way in which that could've happened.

That's a good viewpoint :) a lot of people get far too hung up on the "I'm right" attitude, but it's true that there are many possible ways it could have happened whether you believe in the Bible or not and it is all theory so every single argument has no official basis anyway. Therefore, arguing about it is essentially completely pointless. So...even my original post is basically pointless if I look at it like that.

If you aren't interested in the arguments don't read them.

Sure if someone wants to back off and admit that the bible didn't really happen and is a metaphor then there can be a lot of agreement. Most people who believe the bible is the word of god aren't willing to do that though.

Here's the problem.

Sure, people pick and choose whatever they want from the Bible and ignore the bits they don't like.

Sure, people decide something that has become too ridiculous or unreasonable to believe is now a metaphor or story or whatever.

If you ask someone to explain to you the criteria they use to decide what is factual in the Bible, they balk. They want you to just roll with their cherry picking and shut up about it. The truth is, it is personal preference. This is detrimental in science.

This kind of thinking doesn't work with evolution or the scientific method in general. All the facts have to fit or the theory fails or is refined. People who cherry pick their facts may or may not be successful cherry picking what they like in science. It's exhausting trying to tweak science and religion to pretend they don't conflict.

The people who view the Bible as history or literature probably do not have conflicts with science. However once they start picking out supernatural arbitrary bits of the Bible to believe, you have a red flag when it comes to them potentially trying to do that with scientific issues. There are obviously people who juggle them successfully.

The problem is you never know when they will fade in and out of magical thinking. Maybe it is beneficial to do so for some. Maybe these people are the creative people in science. It’s just too much mental gymnastics to make it work for someone like me.

If you take Genesis literally, no.

With some creative reinterpretation as metaphor and the product of limited understanding of the author(s), in some broad senses, yes.

Interestingly Brigham Young took the latter tack and felt Mormonism was vindicated by discoveries in the 19th century re the age of the earth and so on.

Today's Mormonism will have nothing to do with Brigham Young's theology, and it ain't just adam god and eternal progression. Today's Mormonism has evolved (apostatized?) into Protestant fundamentalism with a few remaining twists.